mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Spammer said: I don't think Pragmatists take it as far as reasoning demands. If everything we experience is reduced to mental states, with no means to determine whether those states correspond to objective reality, there is no basis for determining whether something is true, good, better or best. There's no standard on which to make those determinations; no basis at all for determining what's true or good. If everything is grounded subjectively, it's all relative, and all meaning is self-determined; notions of value and meaning are therefore matters of personal taste. Any talk of truth, the good, better and best are meaningless. In principal, everyone's right and no one's wrong, since there's no standard for comparison. How do Pragmatists find objective Truth and the Good, if there's no possible way for us to determine whether our mental states correspond with reality? Mfb, for instance, frequently says the Mormonism is the 'best' for humanity's wellbeing. How does he know that, because it works for him? That's just like saying 'apple pie tastes best, so it is the best.' Already answered read the article on the deflationary theory of truth We appear to be going in circles https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html Quote William Perry claimed (and his claims have been substantiated by subsequent research) that college students (but others, too) "journey" through 9 "positions" with respect to intellectual (and moral) development. These stages can be characterized in terms of the student's attitude towards knowledge. The 9 positions, grouped into 4 categories, are: Dualism/Received Knowledge: There are right/wrong answers, engraved on Golden Tablets in the sky, known to Authorities. Basic Duality: All problems are solvable; Therefore, the student's task is to learn the Right Solutions Full Dualism: Some Authorities (literature, philosophy) disagree; others (science, math) agree. Therefore, there are Right Solutions, but some teachers' views of the Tablets are obscured. Therefore, student's task is to learn the Right Solutions and ignore the others! Rapaport's speculation, part 1: Perhaps we begin as Dualists because we begin by accepting information from the world and reacting to it. Multiplicity/Subjective Knowledge: There are conflicting answers; therefore, students must trust their "inner voices", not external Authority. Early Multiplicity: There are 2 kinds of problems: those whose solutions we know those whose solutions we don't know yet (thus, a kind of dualism). Student's task is to learn how to find the Right Solutions. Late Multiplicity: Most problems are of the second kind; therefore, everyone has a right to their own opinion; or some problems are unsolvable; therefore, it doesn't matter which (if any) solution you choose. Student's task is to shoot the bull. (Most freshman are at this position, which is a kind of relativism) At this point, some students become alienated, and either retreat to an earlier ("safer") position ("I think I'll study math, not literature, because there are clear answers and not as much uncertainty") or else escape (drop out) ("I can't stand college; all they want is right answers" or else "I can't stand college; no one gives you the right answers".) Rapaport's speculation, part 2: Perhaps we evolve into Multiplists after we learn things tacitly and have internal or implicit "feelings" or intuitions about things, but not conscious or explicit beliefs that can be explained or justified. Relativism/Procedural Knowledge: There are disciplinary reasoning methods: Connected knowledge: empathetic (why do you believe X?; what does this poem say to me?) vs. Separated knowledge: "objective analysis" (what techniques can I use to analyze this poem?) Contextual Relativism: All proposed solutions are supported by reasons; i.e., must be viewed in context & relative to support. Some solutions are better than others, depending on context. Student's task is to learn to evaluate solutions. Rapaport's speculation, part 3: Perhaps we then evolve into Contextual Relativists when we can express our intuitions in language and seek justifications for them and relationships among them. "Pre-Commitment": Student sees the necessity of: making choices committing to a solution Commitment/Constructed Knowledge: Integration of knowledge learned from others with personal experience and reflection. Commitment: Student makes a commitment. Challenges to Commitment: Student experiences implications of commitment. Student explores issues of responsibility. "Post-Commitment": Student realizes commitment is an ongoing, unfolding, evolving activity The journey is sometimes repeated; and one can be at different stages at the same time with respect to different subjects. Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, pogi said: It's all about perspective. Here is my personal paradigm: All truth is interdependent in an interconnected web. In Mormon talk, “All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole”, a.k.a At-one-ment. It is all "one eternal round". We cannot compartmentalize truth and pretend to perceive it/understand it as it is. Every bit of truth we gain alters our perspective of every other interconnected bit truth. Just like one red pixel purposely placed next to a yellow pixel alters the appearance of both to appear orange from the intended perspective. The red pixel causes the yellow pixel to be more vibrant and warm, while the yellow pixel subdues the starkness of the red pixel. If you compartmentalize them, then you will never understand the intended purpose of each pixel and will be blind to "the big picture" due to a limited perspective. If you compartmentalize any single atom of a tree (a hydrogen atom, for example), you will never appreciate its purpose, its role, or perceive of the big picture. Your perspective is too limited and you will never see, hear, smell, touch, or taste the tree it is apart of. We cannot entierly understand/perceive one truth (a tree) as it is, independent of every other truth, without first seeing every other truth (all things) as they are. In other words, you cannot know one thing with certainty, without knowing all things with certainty and perceiving of how it is all interrelated, connected, and flows in one eternal round. I understand your concern that relativity might destroy the eternal constancy and absolute nature of truth. I don't believe it does however. With my paradigm, there IS an absolute, eternal, and constant big picture, Capital 'T' Truth. That is God's truth. Relativity is simply the intellectually honest admission that our perspective of truth is limited to our present position and gazing direction in the overall big picture. Can we be certain of what we see if we only see 1,000 pixels on a screen of seemingly endless pixels? That is what the "all seeing eye" sees and knows. God doesn't give us the big picture. He gives us bits/pixels of truth. What if the whole point is for us to embrace every pixel given to us and live it to the best of our ability, as we understand it (even if our understanding is incomplete and unwhole)? The more we live and embrace, the more we are given as our perspective enlarges and our understanding broadens, and past truths (pixels) are seen in relation to new light and knowledge and thus our perspective and understand of it evolves over time, until we see as God sees and know as God knows. We become God ourselves in other words. You see, that is the beauty of Mormonism. It gives us hope beyond nihilism. It gives us truth without paradox. The faith of eternal life, being one-with-God and all other truths through the at-one-ment, gives purpose, meaning, and direction to present uncertainty. We can embrace the uncertainty that a tree is 'out there' as we perceive it, without falling into nihilism, because of the hope and faith in exaltation. We can determine if something is good (even if we don't entirely comprehend it as it is) by its fruits - the fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, etc.) which, if you will notice, are all subjective mental states. Faith in those feelings, that we can only interpret as "good" because they feel good and bring more good into our lives, brings more bits of truth and more feelings of good, until all things are circumscribed in our eye, ears, and hearts into one great whole, and we see the big picture, and see everything as it is. It is all about perspective. For me and my paradigm, absolute truth exists. That is God's truth. But it can only be known with absolute certainty with an absolute knowledge of all things. Until then, our limited perspective relegates us to relative truth. We each perceive it differently from our unique perspectives and experiences with different bits/pixels of truth. But those experiences with the gifts of the spirit upon obedience to trying the word, gives us hope and faith to endure uncertainty. The more we obey, the more sure our anchor becomes. Great reply. Thank you. You said "Every bit of truth we gain alters our perspective of every other interconnected bit truth." We lack the big picture, we see only the parts and our grasp of the big picture is constantly shifting. But we can grow in truth until we possess all knowledge and no longer see through a glass darkly. You describe the process. With every new truth we embrace, we evolve and grow and are given more, and our understanding of the big picture changes, until we arrive at the fullness through the Atonement, seeing as God sees and knowing what God knows. Until then, we're stuck with varying degrees of relativity. Nihilism is defeated through faith, testing the fruits to see if they're good, and acquiring and embracing every grain of truth that's given to us until we grow into a perfect knowledge. Are you sure you don't belong to the Catholic Tradition? That's exactly the process leading to theosis described in our Greek patristic literature (sources often appropriated in LDS apologetics to explain what Mormons believe about becoming like God). We see truth and relativity the same way. Mormons acquire the fullness of truth through being one'd with God, by becoming like him. So do we. We only acquire knowledge of the true nature of an object, overcome the limitations of our mental states - states governed by the laws of physics, through participation in the life of God. Mormons literally become just like God through the atonement because God is a human being. Catholic Christians are deified through the atonement by participation in the divine nature, effected through the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist. But we don't become just like God since only the uncreated is God and we are created. We will be gods through participation in God, not by nature, as in Mormonism. You said "We become God ourselves in other words. You see, that is the beauty of Mormonism." We also believe we become God ourselves. But that takes me back to my initial point. Our paradigms are similar, but rest on different assumptions, leading to different conclusions about what being deified entails. For you, truth and knowledge are acquired and nihilism overcome by working within the LDS paradigm to grow in truth until you become like God. God as an immaterial being with an uncreated divine nature, and the metaphysics on which that understanding is based, makes no sense within the LDS paradigm. Mfb makes this point continually, in reference to both Mormonism and analytic philosophy. But it makes no sense within these paradigms because they both rest on an implicit assumption that the immaterial does not exist. Relax that assumption and suddenly those paradigms are the ones that make no sense. All of mfb's critiques of ancient and medieval metaphysics are grounded on an assumption that his paradigm is 'true'. If the Pragmatic paradigm is true, of course the old metaphysics yields non-sense. But how can anyone know the paradigm is true? [jump in here mfb, if desired] This is the more radical kind of relativity I'm getting at. Pragmatism as I understand it doesn't go that far, although it should, since the relativity of our philosophical assumptions is entailed in the view that we are our mental states. Mormon Pragmatists say truth exists and is attainable within the paradigm, but how do you know your paradigm is true? Because it works for you, therefore God is a man and the immaterial doesn't exist? Because the laws of physics reveal that a tree is a whole lot more than a tree, the immaterial doesn't exist? How exactly does the fact that matter is governed by laws and has a certain structure demonstrate this? The validity of the underlying assumptions is the issue. Accept a different set as 'true' and your paradigm ceases to work. So, how does one test whether the assumptions underlying a paradigm are 'true', without doing so from within the paradigm, 'cause, you know, that would be circular. Edited December 27, 2017 by Spammer
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, pogi said: You demand reason, but what happens when your "objective standard" is an admittedly unreasonable "contradiction"? How can you embrace that standard with intellectual honesty and good reason? There are other alternatives beyond nihilism. It is not an either or situation. So the best historians go to heaven? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. That seems totally absurd to me to say that the only evidences of God are historical. That makes him feel so distant, impersonal, and...historical. God resides in my heart, not in the past, but in the present. Isn't that what we learn from the great Catholic mystics? He is not some dead, inactive relic of the past, only to be discovered through artifacts, rather he is alive, active, and present in our hearts. That is where we find Him. The words of the prophets on historical documents are a map to that truth. The map is not the truth, it simply points to it. No, historical evidence is only part of the puzzle. We can agree to treat it as objective since it exists outside of us, though it was created by subjective human brains. I'm not privileging the interpretations of historians or my interpretations of the ancient documents, just treating the ancient evidence as objective evidence when looking at primitive Christianity and the history of the Church. When looking for a paradigm, I compared the testimony and the spiritual life of both Mormons and Catholic Mystics to that evidence and concluded that there was no Great Apostasy. It didn't happen. That's a strictly historical determination on my part, based solely on my reading of English translations of old manuscripts and a few Margaret Barker books (ironically, suggested to me by a Mormon, who thought I would see the LDS temple in her work - I didn't. Instead, I saw the linkages to ancient Catholic liturgies!). All of this has nothing to do with whether God exists or whether Jesus rose from the dead. But it was a necessary precursor. Before I could make yet another attempt to look for the Christian God in my heart (back when I was still an atheist), I had to examine the historical claims of both the restorationists and the Catholic Tradition, treating the evidence as an objective standard. I concluded the claims of the former were sorely lacking. There was no apostasy of the ancient church. The way was paved for me to know where to look if I wanted to try prayer once again. Edited December 27, 2017 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Spammer said: So, how does one test whether the assumptions underlying a paradigm are 'true', without doing so from within the paradigm, 'cause, you know, that would be circular. That is why everyone has given up on correspondence. Now you at least understand the problem. Look at the deflationary theory of Truth. Speaking now of paradigms instead of truth? That's progress. Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
pogi Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Spammer said: Great reply. Thank you. You said "Every bit of truth we gain alters our perspective of every other interconnected bit truth." We lack the big picture, we see only the parts and our grasp of the big picture is constantly shifting. But we can grow in truth until we possess all knowledge and no longer see through a glass darkly. You describe the process. With every new truth we embrace, we evolve and grow and are given more, and our understanding of the big picture changes, until we arrive at the fullness through the Atonement, seeing as God sees and knowing what God knows. Until then, we're stuck with varying degrees of relativity. Nihilism is defeated through faith, testing the fruits to see if they're good, and acquiring and embracing every grain of truth that's given to us until we grow into a perfect knowledge. Are you sure you don't belong to the Catholic Tradition? That's exactly the process leading to theosis described in our Greek patristic literature (sources often appropriated in LDS apologetics to explain what Mormons believe about becoming like God). We see truth and relativity the same way. Mormons acquire the fullness of truth through being one'd with God, by becoming like him. So do we. We only acquire knowledge of the true nature of an object, overcome the limitations of our mental states - states governed by the laws of physics, through participation in the life of God. Mormons literally become just like God through the atonement because God is a human being. Catholic Christians are deified through the atonement by participation in the divine nature, effected through the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist. But we don't become just like God since only the uncreated is God and we are created. We will be gods through participation in God, not by nature, as in Mormonism. You said "We become God ourselves in other words. You see, that is the beauty of Mormonism." We also believe we become God ourselves. But that takes me back to my initial point. Our paradigms are similar, but rest on different assumptions, leading to different conclusions about what being deified entails. For you, truth and knowledge are acquired and nihilism overcome by working within the LDS paradigm to grow in truth until you become like God. God as an immaterial being with an uncreated divine nature, and the metaphysics on which that understanding is based, makes no sense within the LDS paradigm. Mfb makes this point continually, in reference to both Mormonism and analytic philosophy. But it makes no sense within these paradigms because they both rest on an implicit assumption that the immaterial does not exist. Relax that assumption and suddenly those paradigms are the ones that make no sense. All of mfb's critiques of ancient and medieval metaphysics are grounded on an assumption that his paradigm is 'true'. If the Pragmatic paradigm is true, of course the old metaphysics yields non-sense. But how can anyone know the paradigm is true? [jump in here mfb, if desired] This is the more radical kind of relativity I'm getting at. Pragmatism as I understand it doesn't go that far, although it should, since the relativity of our philosophical assumptions is entailed in the view that we are our mental states. Mormon Pragmatists say truth exists and is attainable within the paradigm, but how do you know your paradigm is true? Because it works for you, therefore God is a man and the immaterial doesn't exist? Because the laws of physics reveal that a tree is a whole lot more than a tree, the immaterial doesn't exist? How exactly does the fact that matter is governed by laws and has a certain structure demonstrate this? The validity of the underlying assumptions is the issue. Accept a different set as 'true' and your paradigm ceases to work. So, how does one test whether the assumptions underlying a paradigm are 'true', without doing so from within the paradigm, 'cause, you know, that would be circular. Am I of the Catholic Tradition? Wow, I wasn't expecting that response at all! I guess I need to brush up on my Greek patristic literature, sounds like good stuff! I am surprised at how similar our paradigms really are. I am surprised however, that if you accept this paradigm of truth seeking by means of following the fruits of the spirit, as described by the early Church Fathers, why do you insist that something more "objective" is required? Did the early Church Fathers stress that we follow the "facts", the "hard evidence", the measurable and testable variables? Were they as scientific in their approach as you are? It doesn't sound like a very mystical approach, does it? No, I think the early mystics would have dismissed the intellectual and scientific approach to theosis. They seemed to favor a more internal, meditative, subjective, spiritual apprehension of truths beyond the intellect and grounded in the fruits of the spirit. Line upon every spiritual and evolutionary line. Let me see if I understand clearly. You seem to be suggesting that our paradigms of obtaining the fullness of Godhood/knowledge are the same but lead to different conclusions. Is that correct? I would submit that it is impossible to ultimately arrive at different conclusions within the same paradigm of truth seeking. Our assumptions may be different at this time, but that is expected isn't it, with differing degrees of relativity? We currently see different pictures because we have been given different bits/pixels of light/truth, and therefore interpret the overall big picture differently. That is how it works. That is expected. It may seem as if our conclusions about deification may be different, but I suggest that if we both keep an eye single to God, we will both ultimately end up at the same destination and conclusion. There will be NO assumptions at that point. You will know as I know and I will know as you know, and we will know as God knows, and I think we will both be surprised at how ignorant and blind we really were. In both of our paradigms, only God knows absolute truth, would you agree with that? The rest of us fall within differing degrees of relativity, depending on where we stand in relation to God and depending on where our eyes are fixed. Would you agree with that? Would you also agree, that the only way to obtain certainty in knowledge is to obtain the fullness of knowledge and perspective of God? If we don't obtain a fullness, then we are stuck in relativity and can never obtain absolute certainty of anything, though we can have assurances through the fruits of the spirit. Would you agree with that? This is where I think the doctrines of Mormonism really shines, because we will never be able to see from the perspective of an immaterial being, and we will thus never obtain absolute certainty, but will remain in relativity. Knowledge is experience, period. If we can't experience all that God experiences (what it is like to be immaterial and uncreated, for example), then we can never fully attain the knowledge of God, which can only be obtained through experience. We will thus never attain certainty, but will remain in a relative position to the opposite or contrasting nature of God. However, if God is a glorified man, and our literal Father, who experienced what we experience, that gives us an intellectual hope that we can indeed become like God through the same experience of heeding the light. We become his heirs as His literal children, through following the same path that he followed. That is the only way to know as God knows. "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." That is the key to certainty of absolute truth. That is the key to Godhood. It can only be obtained through experience, because experience IS knowledge, and God has demonstrated that it is possible to become like Him. He is our Father, literally. That is the most sacred and most central doctrine of all, which gives us hope of oneness with him, which gives us freedom from nihilism and eternal uncertainty/relativity. Interestingly, the early Church Fathers taught something surprisingly similar to this famous couplet coined by Lorenzo Snow: Irenaeus (c. 130-200) "[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Edited December 27, 2017 by pogi 2
pogi Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 2 hours ago, Spammer said: No, historical evidence is only part of the puzzle. We can agree to treat it as objective since it exists outside of us, though it was created by subjective human brains. I'm not privileging the interpretations of historians or my interpretations of the ancient documents, just treating the ancient evidence as objective evidence when looking at primitive Christianity and the history of the Church. When looking for a paradigm, I compared the testimony and the spiritual life of both Mormons and Catholic Mystics to that evidence and concluded that there was no Great Apostasy. It didn't happen. That's a strictly historical determination on my part, based solely on my reading of English translations of old manuscripts and a few Margaret Barker books (ironically, suggested to me by a Mormon, who thought I would see the LDS temple in her work - I didn't. Instead, I saw the linkages to ancient Catholic liturgies!). All of this has nothing to do with whether God exists or whether Jesus rose from the dead. But it was a necessary precursor. Before I could make yet another attempt to look for the Christian God in my heart (back when I was still an atheist), I had to examine the historical claims of both the restorationists and the Catholic Tradition, treating the evidence as an objective standard. I concluded the claims of the former were sorely lacking. There was no apostasy of the ancient church. The way was paved for me to know where to look if I wanted to try prayer once again. There is nothing wrong with studying the matter out in your mind first, before approaching God. That is precisely the method of revelation as revealed to Joseph Smith: Quote D&C 9 7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. Of course, this is the simplified explanation, whereas Alma 32 goes into much more detail about the process. My question to you is, did you think to ask God if your conclusion was correct? Or did you lean unto your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)? You see, the scriptures make it clear that an objective, intellectual, and rational approach to truth and ultimately to divinity is incomplete. That is because our perspective is beyond limited, while God's perspective is not. Only He can assure us of our path. We should not rely on our own intellect as an objective assurance of truth. Just out of curiosity, how did you personally resolve in your mind the church wide conflict between Arius and Athenasius? Quote Arians taught that the Logos was a divine being begotten by God the Father before the creation of the world, made him a medium through whom everything else was created, and that the Son of God is subordinate to God the Father. A verse from Proverbs was also used: "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work" (Proverbs 8:22). Therefore, the Son was rather the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures, and he was made "God" only by the Father's permission and power. This teaching definitely aligns closer to Mormonism and, if true, the trinity would be evidence of an apostasy. How did you come to the conclusion that Arius and others were wrong? This was no small faction that held this belief in the early church after all. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Spammer said: Great reply. Thank you. You said "Every bit of truth we gain alters our perspective of every other interconnected bit truth." We lack the big picture, we see only the parts and our grasp of the big picture is constantly shifting. But we can grow in truth until we possess all knowledge and no longer see through a glass darkly. You describe the process. With every new truth we embrace, we evolve and grow and are given more, and our understanding of the big picture changes, until we arrive at the fullness through the Atonement, seeing as God sees and knowing what God knows. Until then, we're stuck with varying degrees of relativity. Nihilism is defeated through faith, testing the fruits to see if they're good, and acquiring and embracing every grain of truth that's given to us until we grow into a perfect knowledge. Are you sure you don't belong to the Catholic Tradition? That's exactly the process leading to theosis described in our Greek patristic literature (sources often appropriated in LDS apologetics to explain what Mormons believe about becoming like God). We see truth and relativity the same way. Mormons acquire the fullness of truth through being one'd with God, by becoming like him. So do we. We only acquire knowledge of the true nature of an object, overcome the limitations of our mental states - states governed by the laws of physics, through participation in the life of God. Mormons literally become just like God through the atonement because God is a human being. Catholic Christians are deified through the atonement by participation in the divine nature, effected through the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist. But we don't become just like God since only the uncreated is God and we are created. We will be gods through participation in God, not by nature, as in Mormonism. You said "We become God ourselves in other words. You see, that is the beauty of Mormonism." We also believe we become God ourselves. But that takes me back to my initial point. Our paradigms are similar, but rest on different assumptions, leading to different conclusions about what being deified entails. For you, truth and knowledge are acquired and nihilism overcome by working within the LDS paradigm to grow in truth until you become like God. God as an immaterial being with an uncreated divine nature, and the metaphysics on which that understanding is based, makes no sense within the LDS paradigm. Mfb makes this point continually, in reference to both Mormonism and analytic philosophy. But it makes no sense within these paradigms because they both rest on an implicit assumption that the immaterial does not exist. Relax that assumption and suddenly those paradigms are the ones that make no sense. All of mfb's critiques of ancient and medieval metaphysics are grounded on an assumption that his paradigm is 'true'. If the Pragmatic paradigm is true, of course the old metaphysics yields non-sense. But how can anyone know the paradigm is true? [jump in here mfb, if desired] This is the more radical kind of relativity I'm getting at. Pragmatism as I understand it doesn't go that far, although it should, since the relativity of our philosophical assumptions is entailed in the view that we are our mental states. Mormon Pragmatists say truth exists and is attainable within the paradigm, but how do you know your paradigm is true? Because it works for you, therefore God is a man and the immaterial doesn't exist? Because the laws of physics reveal that a tree is a whole lot more than a tree, the immaterial doesn't exist? How exactly does the fact that matter is governed by laws and has a certain structure demonstrate this? The validity of the underlying assumptions is the issue. Accept a different set as 'true' and your paradigm ceases to work. So, how does one test whether the assumptions underlying a paradigm are 'true', without doing so from within the paradigm, 'cause, you know, that would be circular. Reality is what you see and feel around you. It is the warmth of the sun, the colors of the world, the wonderful sound of birds and streams and waterfalls and laughter. It is the spirit speaking to your heart. It is love for your spouse, the dearness of children, the itchiness of mosquito bites and the pain of a stubbed toe and the loss of a loved one. THAT is reality That is NOT through a glass darkly. There is no difference between appearance and reality. Yes we make mistakes in perception. We chase mirages. OOPS. No biggie. An error. God allows for errors, that is what the atonement ultimately is for when those errors are sins. Words are another thing. You will never put God into a bottle. It doesn't matter if its Mormon Exaltation or Orthodox Theosis- it is God growing in your heart (Alma 32) and perfecting us. The rest is the words of men. God is not in the words of men, HE is real. He is unspeakable We know what reality is when we hear it- but we cannot define it any more than we can define the color red to a blind person or the sound of a trumpet or the laughter of children to a deaf person. "Truth" on the other hand is another thing. It is linguistic- only sentences can be true or false. Reality is not "true"- the color red or the sound of a trumpet is not true or false but a sentence about either could be. That is the confusion Truth does not capture reality because language cannot capture reality in its fullness. Appearances ARE reality- all we can know are appearances AND the feelings in our hearts which are just as valid because they are reality as we experience it. Justification of sentences is another matter - why are beliefs justified? Because they work. That is the short answer. Objectivity applies to justification not "truth"- a belief is justified by Alma 32 even in science. A paradigm about splitting the atom is proven when the bomb goes off or the plant produces electricity or the submarine goes under the North Pole. The theory/paradigm works and produces "fruit" in an Alma sense But that is justification- not truth. Mormon vs Orthodox beliefs- both are justified as the only way religious beliefs can be justified objectively- they give peace to the believer. There is no other linguistic measure we can use than that. But internally or subjectively YOUR beliefs in substance cannot possibly give me comfort, and I presume that is the case for you as well. Fine. No way to measure "truth" in such a context because truth is always contextual. Both beliefs are justified within their sphere of truth (D&C 93) but we cannot say anything abut their "truth" because that is the unspeakable feelings within the heart of the individual. I cannot tell YOU what gives YOU purpose in life and that is what religion is for. Any way please listen carefully and try to ignore that Rorty is totally full of himself in this video. He is a timid little boy who is suddenly being videoed and he is nervous and trying to appear confident and superior. Oh well he is just a poor little human trying to show bravado. I keep coming back to this because 1- it answers it all right here 2- no one ever actually listens to it. Please listen carefully and it will explain it all. Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Am I of the Catholic Tradition? Wow, I wasn't expecting that response at all! I guess I need to brush up on my Greek patristic literature, sounds like good stuff! I am surprised at how similar our paradigms really are. I am surprised however, that if you accept this paradigm of truth seeking by means of following the fruits of the spirit, as described by the early Church Fathers, why do you insist that something more "objective" is required? Did the early Church Fathers stress that we follow the "facts", the "hard evidence", the measurable and testable variables? Were they as scientific in their approach as you are? It doesn't sound like a very mystical approach, does it? No, I think the early mystics would have dismissed the intellectual and scientific approach to theosis. They seemed to favor a more internal, meditative, subjective, spiritual apprehension of truths beyond the intellect and grounded in the fruits of the spirit. Line upon every spiritual and evolutionary line. Let me see if I understand clearly. You seem to be suggesting that our paradigms of obtaining the fullness of Godhood/knowledge are the same but lead to different conclusions. Is that correct? I would submit that it is impossible to ultimately arrive at different conclusions within the same paradigm of truth seeking. Our assumptions may be different at this time, but that is expected isn't it, with differing degrees of relativity? We currently see different pictures because we have been given different bits/pixels of light/truth, and therefore interpret the overall big picture differently. That is how it works. That is expected. It may seem as if our conclusions about deification may be different, but I suggest that if we both keep an eye single to God, we will both ultimately end up at the same destination and conclusion. There will be NO assumptions at that point. You will know as I know and I will know as you know, and we will know as God knows, and I think we will both be surprised at how ignorant and blind we really were. In both of our paradigms, only God knows absolute truth, would you agree with that? The rest of us fall within differing degrees of relativity, depending on where we stand in relation to God and depending on where our eyes are fixed. Would you agree with that? Would you also agree, that the only way to obtain certainty in knowledge is to obtain the fullness of knowledge and perspective of God? If we don't obtain a fullness, then we are stuck in relativity and can never obtain absolute certainty of anything, though we can have assurances through the fruits of the spirit. Would you agree with that? This is where I think the doctrines of Mormonism really shines, because we will never be able to see from the perspective of an immaterial being, and we will thus never obtain absolute certainty, but will remain in relativity. Knowledge is experience, period. If we can't experience all that God experiences (what it is like to be immaterial and uncreated, for example), then we can never fully attain the knowledge of God, which can only be obtained through experience. We will thus never attain certainty, but will remain in a relative position to the opposite or contrasting nature of God. However, if God is a glorified man, and our literal Father, who experienced what we experience, that gives us an intellectual hope that we can indeed become like God through the same experience of heeding the light. We become his heirs as His literal children, through following the same path that he followed. That is the only way to know as God knows. "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." That is the key to certainty of absolute truth. That is the key to Godhood. It can only be obtained through experience, because experience IS knowledge, and God has demonstrated that it is possible to become like Him. He is our Father, literally. That is the most sacred and most central doctrine of all, which gives us hope of oneness with him, which gives us freedom from nihilism and eternal uncertainty/relativity. Interestingly, the early Church Fathers taught something surprisingly similar to this famous couplet coined by Lorenzo Snow: Irenaeus (c. 130-200) "[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Catholic mysticism is as empirical as in Mormonism, but rests on a different set of assumptions. Both traditions appeal to science and history to help point the way to the correct path (continuity of the primitive church or Apostasy), and we're in agreement that ultimately God is only found through prayer, fasting and love of neighbor. The Catholic mystics and Greek church fathers would all disagree with you that the Father is a glorified man, however. Our paradigms are similar, but not the same. Catholic mystics and church fathers rest their praxis on belief that the Father is immaterial. This is a crucial difference. The destination is union with God and this goal is the same in both paradigms; how you get there is also the same (prayer, fasting, love of neighbor); but what the final result is understood to mean is not the same: participation of created matter in the immaterial Uncreated vs humans becoming just like their glorified, human Father. Each perspective derives from different foundational assumptions about the nature of God. Even if we share the same paradigm of truth seeking, the result will be different because the key underlying assumption differs. The assumption colors how the result is to be interpreted. If we both keep an eye single to God, we will each end up at the same location (obviously), but what that location is depends on whether God is a glorified man or is immaterial. If God is either one or the other (he can't be both), one of us will be surprised. We'll both be surprised if neither Mormonism nor Catholic Christianity have the correct understanding of God's nature in our paradigms. I agree that only God knows absolute truth. I also agree that each of us 'falls within differing degrees of relativity, depending on where we stand in relation to God and depending on where our eyes are fixed.' I agree that 'knowledge is experience, period', but disagree that 'we will never be able to see from the perspective of an immaterial being, and we will thus never obtain absolute certainty, but will remain in relativity.' The Catholic tradition posits that material beings (us) can see from the perspective of the Immaterial via revelation. The necessary experience is acquired through participation in the divine life and is a gift of Grace. Our spiritual eyes will be opened, we will see as God 'sees', not with our eyes, but inwardly, in the heart, the place where God dwells. God will reveal Himself and unite with us and through that union will grant us the gift of seeing as He sees. It's revelation. That doesn't work within the Mormon paradigm, but works perfectly well within ours. So, I agree that 'if we don't obtain a fullness, then we are stuck in relativity and can never obtain absolute certainty of anything, though we can have assurances through the fruits of the spirit' - until we attain to a perfect knowledge in Christ. But, indeed, the fullness can be acquired through the Holy Spirit. But which spirit? The Holy Spirit Who is 'part' of the Trinity, one God in three persons or the LDS Holy Ghost, who is a member of the Godhead, three separate beings, two of which - Heavenly Father and Jesus - are glorified men? But that's precisely the issue. Which is the correct assumption to run with when choosing paradigms and on what basis do we make the choice? Working within the paradigm to determine which assumption is 'true' is circular. It may be that one paradigm works best for you (Mormonism), but how do you propose to test whether the key assumption underlying Mormonism (God is a glorified man) is true without doing so from within your paradigm? Comparing the two propositions to determine which is 'better' or 'best' requires a third which can serve as the basis for comparison, a standard. Does one exist, or would that be just another paradigm? Does such a standard exist (where is it?) or are we all just 'stuck', with no standard and no non-circular basis to make the comparison? Deflationary theory (if I understand it) says no such standard exists, or if it exists is inaccessible, since we interact with the world through contingent language and we are only our mental states. Reality as it is in itself is inaccessible. So, if God is Truth and access to Reality can only be acquired through the divine union, which God are we talking about? The Immaterial or the glorified Man? Which paradigm do we choose and on what basis do we make that choice, without being circular? About the Lorenzo Snow couplet and Irenaeus, he did teach something sort of similar to the LDS view, but it's only a surface similarity. Irenaeus did not base his teaching on the LDS assumption about the nature of the Father. For Irenaus, the Father is not a glorified man. Irenaeus taught against the Greek philosophical assumption that matter is eternal. Instead, Irenaeus taught that God is an uncreated spiritual essence and created matter out of nothing. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.22, 2.10, and 3.8. Understanding what Irenaeus meant by "[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself" requires beginning with his own belief in ex nihilo creation as the starting point. Irenaeus and the other ECFs who taught theosis all began from the same starting point. E.g., Athenasius of Alexandria - “God became man so that men might become gods" and Gregory of Nyssa - "Man is mud whom God has commanded to become god." None of them believed God is a glorified man. Edited December 27, 2017 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: There is nothing wrong with studying the matter out in your mind first, before approaching God. That is precisely the method of revelation as revealed to Joseph Smith: Of course, this is the simplified explanation, whereas Alma 32 goes into much more detail about the process. My question to you is, did you think to ask God if your conclusion was correct? Or did you lean unto your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)? You see, the scriptures make it clear that an objective, intellectual, and rational approach to truth and ultimately to divinity is incomplete. That is because our perspective is beyond limited, while God's perspective is not. Only He can assure us of our path. We should not rely on our own intellect as an objective assurance of truth. Just out of curiosity, how did you personally resolve in your mind the church wide conflict between Arius and Athenasius? This teaching definitely aligns closer to Mormonism and, if true, the trinity would be evidence of an apostasy. How did you come to the conclusion that Arius and others were wrong? This was no small faction that held this belief in the early church after all. What he does not see is that he is arguing against his own paradigms as much as he is arguing against the Mormon paradigm The only possible answer is that one cannot see beyond your paradigm and so either truth is relative or we just argue about it forever. That is where the Perry Scheme comes in. I think there comes a time when one wants to get beyond "neener neener" in intellectual discussions and actually acknowledge that others could be right, but no thanks for now, this is what works for me at the moment. I don't see a way out if it except for fundamentalism and dogmatism. I suppose that is its own paradigm, and so the circle is complete. But what does God do? He creates his own reality from matter unorganized and commits to his world. I guess that puts him in the highest Perry category Quote Commitment/Constructed Knowledge:Integration of knowledge learned from others with personal experience and reflection. Commitment: Student makes a commitment. Challenges to Commitment: Student experiences implications of commitment. Student explores issues of responsibility. "Post-Commitment": Student realizes commitment is an ongoing, unfolding, evolving activity Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Reality is what you see and feel around you. It is the warmth of the sun, the colors of the world, the wonderful sound of birds and streams and waterfalls and laughter. It is the spirit speaking to your heart. It is love for your spouse, the dearness of children, the itchiness of mosquito bites and the pain of a stubbed toe and the loss of a loved one. THAT is reality That is NOT through a glass darkly. There is no difference between appearance and reality. Yes we make mistakes in perception. We chase mirages. OOPS. No biggie. An error. God allows for errors, that is what the atonement ultimately is for when those errors are sins. Words are another thing. You will never put God into a bottle. It doesn't matter if its Mormon Exaltation or Orthodox Theosis- it is God growing in your heart (Alma 32) and perfecting us. The rest is the words of men. God is not in the words of men, HE is real. He is unspeakable We know what reality is when we hear it- but we cannot define it any more than we can define the color red to a blind person or the sound of a trumpet or the laughter of children to a deaf person. "Truth" on the other hand is another thing. It is linguistic- only sentences can be true or false. Reality is not "true"- the color red or the sound of a trumpet is not true or false but a sentence about either could be. That is the confusion Truth does not capture reality because language cannot capture reality in its fullness. Appearances ARE reality- all we can know are appearances AND the feelings in our hearts which are just as valid because they are reality as we experience it. Justification of sentences is another matter - why are beliefs justified? Because they work. That is the short answer. Objectivity applies to justification not "truth"- a belief is justified by Alma 32 even in science. A paradigm about splitting the atom is proven when the bomb goes off or the plant produces electricity or the submarine goes under the North Pole. The theory/paradigm works and produces "fruit" in an Alma sense But that is justification- not truth. Mormon vs Orthodox beliefs- both are justified as the only way religious beliefs can be justified objectively- they give peace to the believer. There is no other linguistic measure we can use than that. But internally or subjectively YOUR beliefs in substance cannot possibly give me comfort, and I presume that is the case for you as well. Fine. No way to measure "truth" in such a context because truth is always contextual. Both beliefs are justified within their sphere of truth (D&C 93) but we cannot say anything abut their "truth" because that is the unspeakable feelings within the heart of the individual. I cannot tell YOU what gives YOU purpose in life and that is what religion is for. Any way please listen carefully and try to ignore that Rorty is totally full of himself in this video. He is a timid little boy who is suddenly being videoed and he is nervous and trying to appear confident and superior. Oh well he is just a poor little human trying to show bravado. I keep coming back to this because 1- it answers it all right here 2- no one ever actually listens to it. Please listen carefully and it will explain it all. Thank you. Good stuff. But let me ask you - would you agree that knowing - really knowing - whether God is a glorified man or the Holy Trinity of the Catholic tradition can be determined in a non-circular way? How do we compare the two propositions from outside either paradigm? It seems that deflationary theory says this is an impossibility.
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What he does not see is that he is arguing against his own paradigms as much as he is arguing against the Mormon paradigm The only possible answer is that one cannot see beyond your paradigm and so either truth is relative or we just argue about it forever. That is where the Perry Scheme comes in. I think there comes a time when one wants to get beyond "neener neener" in intellectual discussions and actually acknowledge that others could be right, but no thanks for now, this is what works for me at the moment. I don't see a way out if it except for fundamentalism and dogmatism. I suppose that is its own paradigm, and so the circle is complete. Oh, I see that I'm also arguing against my own paradigm. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it's possible to compare two paradigms without reference to either. I've lived both paradigms (LDS and Catholic/Orthodox). The former did not produce good fruit in my life; the latter does. Therefore, God is not a glorified man. That seems to be the only valid process for discerning truth from the Pragmatic standpoint. If so, then great - sorry, Mark, you're incorrect - God is an Immaterial being. Is that really where we are? It seems so. Edited December 27, 2017 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Spammer said: Thank you. Good stuff. But let me ask you - would you agree that knowing - really knowing - whether God is a glorified man or the Holy Trinity of the Catholic tradition can be determined in a non-circular way? How do we compare the two propositions from outside either paradigm? It seems that deflationary theory says this is an impossibility. Yep. You can never get out of your paradigm- but you can say essentially "It works for me" If substance theology made any sense I could be Orthodox It doesn't. Humanism makes sense to me. Humanism raised to the point of theology is what Mormonism is. That is why that if it was presented correctly it could be the stone cut without hands rolling forth the fill the earth. If we could make secularists see that their paradigm is objectively no better than ours or no worse, we could fill the earth with theists. For every trend there is a counter-trend. Give it all a hundred years and religion will make a come-back and I am convinced it will be along these lines. Rorty did find religion you know eventually. But as it is we will probably just keep yammering at each other.
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Spammer said: Oh, I see that I'm also arguing against my own paradigm. "The only possible answer is that one cannot see beyond your paradigm and so either truth is relative or we just argue about it forever." If true, and it seems like it is, then all discussions of 'true', 'good', 'better' and 'best' are pointless. We're all stuck inside a paradigm, with no way out and no basis beyond personal experience within the paradigm to determine which paradigm is better, worse or the best. I'm forced to conclude that there's no extra-paradigmatic standard to appeal to to judge others' paradigms. Thus, even though my paradigm condemns suicide bombing, there's no absolute standard I can appeal to to convince the bomber his paradigm is wrong - wrong in a non-relative sense. I can only hit him over the head with my paradigm and hope for the best. Go ahead and convert a suicide bomber to the truth then. Do you see a way? At some point reality walks into our lives and you fall of the very real cliff that you could not imagine was there. Rorty would say "most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations." And that includes real cliffs, real trees to bump into and real sentences. Can you find the sentences that would convert him? Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Spammer said: Oh, I see that I'm also arguing against my own paradigm. What I'm trying to figure out is whether it's possible to compare two paradigms without reference to either. I've lived both paradigms (LDS and Catholic/Orthodox). The former did not produce good fruit in my life; the latter does. Therefore, God is not a glorified man. That seems to be the only valid process for discerning truth from the Pragmatic standpoint. If so, then great - sorry, Mark, you're incorrect - God is an Immaterial being. Is that really where we are? It seems so. Yeah I have been saying that from word one. Of course you have no basis for telling me I am "incorrect" though because those words do not even make sense to me. "Incorrect" I understand, but you have no basis communicable for that to apply to me. Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 Highly relevant: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-schmanko/religion-as-a-plurality-o_b_12791720.html
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah I have been saying that from word one. Of course you have no basis for telling me I am "incorrect" though because those words do not even make sense to me. "Incorrect" I understand, but you have no basis communicable for that to apply to me. Lol, well said and I see the 'truth' of it. It brings a whole new perspective to F&T meetings, though. "I'd like to bear my testimony, I 'know' the church is true." Ok. Sounds good. I'm happy for you. Doesn't work for me, though. Makes for an interesting conversation with the missionaries. I wonder how they would respond? I still attend with my wife from time to time, btw, so maybe I'll have an opportunity. Of course, the same applies to 'feeling' God's presence when receiving the Eucharist. If you feel it and believe it, then it's God. This is new for me. I grew up in the LDS church surrounded by testimonies and spirit-feels. I never really felt anything and even if I had, I always wondered whether it was even possible in principle to really know whether God was the source. I always suspected the answer was no. I was well in my way to Pragmatism, without knowing it. I just didn't have the concepts and language to articulate it. I used to get so angry when people would bear their testimonies and tell me the reason I didn't feel the spirit was because I was doing it wrong (I'm insincere, not really willing to do what it takes, offended by someone, etc). It doesn't make me as angry anymore. They say they know, but they don't know the way they think they know. I'm no different. Knowing that does make me uncomfortable. The promise that I can really know for myself that the church is true (or not) was ingrained in me from my earliest memories. Even now, I still look for a feeling from God at the Liturgy that's of such a character that's I cannot deny it's from God. I guess I have to learn to live with the uncertainty. There's no way to know, no matter what paradigm I adopt. In Orthodoxy and Catholic RCIA, people talk about their spiritual experiences. I suppose I'll never be one of them - the spirit feelers, either. It's a bit disheartening. Edited December 27, 2017 by Spammer
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Go ahead and convert a suicide bomber to the truth then. Do you see a way? At some point reality walks into our lives and you fall of the very real cliff that you could not imagine was there. Rorty would say "most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences, there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations." And that includes real cliffs, real trees to bump into and real sentences. Can you find the sentences that would convert him? Nope. I think I'd have to speak from within his own paradigm.
pogi Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 28 minutes ago, Spammer said: Catholic mysticism is as empirical as in Mormonism, but rests on a different set of assumptions. Both traditions appeal to science and history to help point the way to the correct path (continuity of the primitive church or Apostasy), and we're in agreement that ultimately God is only found through prayer, fasting and love of neighbor. The Catholic mystics and Greek church fathers would all disagree with you that the Father is a glorified man, however. Our paradigms are similar, but not the same. Catholic mystics and church fathers rest their praxis on belief that the Father is immaterial. This is a crucial difference. The destination is union with God and this goal is the same in both paradigms; how you get there is also the same (prayer, fasting, love of neighbor); but what the final result is understood to mean is not the same: participation of created matter in the immaterial Uncreated vs humans becoming just like their glorified, human Father. Each perspective derives from different foundational assumptions about the nature of God. Even if we share the same paradigm of truth seeking, the result will be different because the key underlying assumption differs. The assumption colors how the result is to be interpreted. If we both keep an eye single to God, we will each end up at the same location (obviously), but what that location is depends on whether God is a glorified man or is immaterial. If God is either one or the other (he can't be both), one of us will be surprised. We'll both be surprised if neither Mormonism nor Catholic Christianity have the correct understanding of God's nature in our paradigms. I agree that only God knows absolute truth. I also agree that each of us 'falls within differing degrees of relativity, depending on where we stand in relation to God and depending on where our eyes are fixed.' I agree that 'knowledge is experience, period', but disagree that 'we will never be able to see from the perspective of an immaterial being, and we will thus never obtain absolute certainty, but will remain in relativity.' The Catholic tradition posits that material beings (us) can see from the perspective of the Immaterial via revelation. The necessary experience is acquired through participation in the divine life and is a gift of Grace. Our spiritual eyes will be opened, we will see as God 'sees', not with our eyes, but inwardly, in the heart, the place where God dwells. God will reveal Himself and unite with us and through that union will grant us the gift of seeing as He sees. It's revelation. That doesn't work within the Mormon paradigm, but works perfectly well within ours. So, I agree that 'if we don't obtain a fullness, then we are stuck in relativity and can never obtain absolute certainty of anything, though we can have assurances through the fruits of the spirit' - until we attain to a perfect knowledge in Christ. But, indeed, the fullness can be acquired through the Holy Spirit. But which spirit? The Holy Spirit Who is 'part' of the Trinity, one God in three persons or the LDS Holy Ghost, who is a member of the Godhead, three separate beings, two of which - Heavenly Father and Jesus - are glorified men? But that's precisely the issue. Which is the correct assumption to run with when choosing paradigms and on what basis do we make the choice? Working within the paradigm to determine which assumption is 'true' is circular. It may be that one paradigm works best for you (Mormonism), but how do you propose to test whether the key assumption underlying Mormonism (God is a glorified man) is true without doing so from within your paradigm? Comparing the two propositions to determine which is 'better' or 'best' requires a third which can serve as the basis for comparison, a standard. Does one exist, or would that be just another paradigm? Does such a standard exist (where is it?) or are we all just 'stuck', with no standard and no non-circular basis to make the comparison? Deflationary theory (if I understand it) says no such standard exists, or if it exists is inaccessible, since we interact with the world through contingent language and we are only our mental states. Reality as it is in itself is inaccessible. So, if God is Truth and access to Reality can only be acquired through the divine union, which God are we talking about? The Immaterial or the glorified Man? Which paradigm do we choose and on what basis do we make that choice, without being circular? About the Lorenzo Snow couplet and Irenaeus, he did teach something sort of similar to the LDS view, but it's only a surface similarity. Irenaeus did not base his teaching on the LDS assumption about the nature of the Father. For Irenaus, the Father is not a glorified man. Irenaeus taught against the Greek philosophical assumption that matter is eternal. Instead, Irenaeus taught that God is an uncreated spiritual essence and created matter out of nothing. See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.22, 2.10, and 3.8. Understanding what Irenaeus meant by "[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself" requires beginning with his own belief in ex nihilo creation as the starting point. Irenaeus and the other ECFs who taught theosis all began from the same starting point. E.g., Athenasius of Alexandria - “God became man so that men might become gods" and Gregory of Nyssa - "Man is mud whom God has commanded to become god." None of them believed God is a glorified man. I think you are placing too much emphasis on the assumptions. All of our assumptions will be either validated or corrected in the end. The important part is the paradigm of truth seeking. If we are both seeking truth in the same way, then one, or both, of our assumptions will be corrected in the end and we will see eye to eye. The key is to have a malleable heart. To allow God to write His word on our heart. This requires us to not hold so fast to our assumptions, but to be open to correction, revelation, and enlightenment. The point is to not let our assumptions guide and inform our truth seeking (that is backwards), but to let our truth seeking inform our assumptions, until there are NO assumptions because we know as God knows. I think the definition of a scriptural "stiff neck" and "hard heart" is to let our assumptions inform our truth seeking. You said, "The destination is union with God and this goal is the same in both paradigms; how you get there is also the same (prayer, fasting, love of neighbor); but what the final result is understood to mean is not the same"; and, "Even if we share the same paradigm of truth seeking, the result will be different because the key underlying assumption differs. The assumption colors how the result is to be interpreted." My point is that who cares what the final result is "understood" to mean? None of us can see the big picture, so shouldn't we expect our current understanding/interpretation of the final results (big picture) to be imprecise and imperfect. Shouldn't we expect our understanding to evolve? "The final result" is beyond our capacity to comprehend in its fullness at this time. The point is to be open to the whispering of the spirit and go where it takes you. Quote Both traditions appeal to science and history to help point the way to the correct path (continuity of the primitive church or Apostasy) I will disagree with you on this point. Mormon doctrine does not appeal to science or history. Joseph appealed to God. Joseph fully expected God's church to be on earth when he asked, "which church is true?" Mormon apologists might appeal to science or history to defend the revelation, but that is not what pointed the way.
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, pogi said: There is nothing wrong with studying the matter out in your mind first, before approaching God. That is precisely the method of revelation as revealed to Joseph Smith: Of course, this is the simplified explanation, whereas Alma 32 goes into much more detail about the process. My question to you is, did you think to ask God if your conclusion was correct? Or did you lean unto your own understanding (Proverbs 3:5)? You see, the scriptures make it clear that an objective, intellectual, and rational approach to truth and ultimately to divinity is incomplete. That is because our perspective is beyond limited, while God's perspective is not. Only He can assure us of our path. We should not rely on our own intellect as an objective assurance of truth. Just out of curiosity, how did you personally resolve in your mind the church wide conflict between Arius and Athenasius? This teaching definitely aligns closer to Mormonism and, if true, the trinity would be evidence of an apostasy. How did you come to the conclusion that Arius and others were wrong? This was no small faction that held this belief in the early church after all. Yes, I asked God whether my conclusions were correct. I also asked God whether the LDS church is true. Many times. There were no recognizable answers, so that left me with the review of the ancient documents to decide what kind of Christian I should be when I decided to give Jesus a try again. I read the NT and the ante-Nicene church fathers. All of them. I didn't see Mormonism; I saw elements of Catholicism everywhere I looked. Nowhere did I see the teaching that the Father is a glorified man in the ante-Nicene literature. Even Arius agreed with the Catholic understanding of the Father's nature. What caused the controversy was his position that the Son was the Father's ex nihilo creation, the same as us. It was varying shades of Catholicism everywhere I looked. There was really only one choice after that effort. Edited December 27, 2017 by Spammer
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 31 minutes ago, Spammer said: Lol, well said and I see the 'truth' of it. It brings a whole new perspective to F&T meetings, though. "I'd like to bear my testimony, I 'know' the church is true." Ok. Sounds good. I'm happy for you. Doesn't work for me, though. Makes for an interesting conversation with the missionaries. I wonder how they would respond? I still attend with my wife from time to time, btw, so maybe I'll have an opportunity. Of course, the same applies to 'feeling' God's presence when receiving the Eucharist. If you feel it and believe it, then it's God. This is new for me. I grew up in the LDS church surrounded by testimonies and spirit-feels. I never really felt anything and even if I had, I always wondered whether it was even possible in principle to really know whether God was the source. I always suspected the answer was no. I was well in my way to Pragmatism, without knowing it. I just didn't have the concepts and language to articulate it. I used to get so angry when people would bear their testimonies and tell me the reason I didn't feel the spirit was because I was doing it wrong (I'm insincere, not really willing to do what it takes, offended by someone, etc). It doesn't make me as angry anymore. They say they know, but they don't know the way they think they know. I'm no different. Knowing that does make me uncomfortable. The promise that I can really know for myself that the church is true (or not) was ingrained in me from my earliest memories. Even now, I still look for a feeling from God at the Liturgy that's of such a character that's I cannot deny it's from God. I guess I have to learn to live with the uncertainty. There's no way to know, no matter what paradigm I adopt. In Orthodoxy and Catholic RCIA, people talk about their spiritual experiences. I suppose I'll never be one of them - the spirit feelers, either. It's a bit disheartening. So sorry, honestly. Giving up Santa hurts but once it heals you will feel great liberation and confidence in finding God as he presents himself to you as your personal tutor. All those feelings ARE God teaching YOU your own path that is best for you personally. For me Mormon orthopraxis is perfect because as long as I am practicing according to the temple covenants and Temple recommend questions I am in full Fellowship. I am a temple worker and get to receive Revelations all day while I am there. The words don't get in the way it is all the Lord working Within Me. The kingdom of God is within you and nowhere else. Ask God and he will give you wisdom. Sounds familiar huh?
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So sorry, honestly. Giving up Santa hurts but once it heals you will feel great liberation and confidence in finding God as he presents himself to you as your personal tutor. All those feelings ARE God teaching YOU your own path that is best for you personally. For me Mormon orthopraxis is perfect because as long as I am practicing according to the temple covenants and Temple recommend questions I am in full Fellowship. I am a temple worker and get to receive Revelations all day while I am there. The words don't get in the way it is all the Lord working Within Me. The kingdom of God is within you and nowhere else. Ask God and he will give you wisdom. Sounds familiar huh? Hmm...it does sound familiar. Elmer Fudd? Seriously, I think the old Mormon model really did a number on me. I've been looking for that spiritual witness, those confirming feelings, my entire life, even now. Their lack still pushes me toward atheism. It's a persistent lack, beginning 35 years ago when I first got on my knees as a high schooler to ask for the same experience others said they had received, has produced a profound angst I live with daily. I've got to let it go for my own wellbeing. It still seems to be central to Mormonism - I still hear it every time I visit with my wife - so Mormonism still won't work for me. I base my current practice on patristic readings and the fact that I find participation in the Divine Liturgy, and the theology that informs it, to be very satisfying. That'll have to be good enough and for now it is.
pogi Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Spammer said: Yes, I asked God whether my conclusions were correct. I also asked God whether the LDS church is true. Many times. There were no recognizable answers, so that left me with the review of the ancient documents to decide what kind of Christian I should be when I decided to give Jesus a try again. I read the NT and the ante-Nicene church fathers. All of them. I didn't see Mormonism; I saw Catholicism everywhere. There was really only one choice after that effort. It sounds like it was the right choice for you then. God has something for you to learn in Catholicism, and God has something for me to learn in Mormonism. But I am confident that with good seed and good heart, we will both be feasting on the same fruit in the end...one of us just might be a little more surprised than the other Edited December 27, 2017 by pogi 1
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Spammer said: Nope. I think I'd have to speak from within his own paradigm. Yeah that is what I try to do with correspondence theory guys and ask them how we get outside of appearances to see the truth as it is and compare it to the appearance to see if the appearance is "correct" in its correspondence. At that point I usually lose them. There has to be a little crack there for them to even comprehend the idea they are usually so locked in to thinking in other ways. When you are really locked into one way of seeing, you are locked in. After I first saw it, I could not believe anything else- it was so crystal clear. It was like the world changed instantly and it was not necessarily comfortable. For me it was understanding that a tree "as it is" is a sea of waves and particles immersed in waves and particles of air and whatever- a chaos of vibrations and energy etc and then our eyes/brain make it intelligible But then I figured out that that explanation was not even correct BECAUSE it was still using the idea of "waves and particles and vibrations" which were totally human words made up by scientists who were quite human expressing it all in language and math- which is more a reflection of the way our brains work in making things intelligible, than it is about the world. You look out at what seems to be the world and what you see is your own mind/brain/spirit looking back at you in a kind of mirror of what your body is designed to see. Then that totally blew my mind. That was way back in 1968 though so I have had some experience at thinking this way so now I find it hard to even get into the other paradigm. This is one explanation: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm Quote To perceive an object is not merely to have an experience or a set of experiences: to perceive an object there must be a combination of different experiences into an objective Unity. To use one of Kant’s examples my perception of a house from various perspectives could not be considered a perception of a house (or of any object) if the several experiences constituting this perception were not unified or synthesized as various experiences of one and the same object. My perception of the house is not merely the sum of my experiences of the house, but my synthesizing these experiences as experiences of a house. Because experiences alone can never give us objects there can be no perception of objects unless there is a synthesis of the manifold of experience. Moreover because we never perceive simply or have experiences simply, but always perceive or experience something and because perceiving or experiencing something depends on synthesis, there can be no unsynthesized experiences. (We shall come to see the same major thesis become the central principle of Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology, the philosophy which will give a major impetus to the methodological Innovations of the 20th century existentialists. And Pragmatism is basically just Phenomenology/Existentialism as seen by Americans as opposed to Europeans, expressing it in English in a slightly different way. When I heard about the Mormon idea of God creating the earth from Matter Unorganized- it blew my mind as exactly paralleling the synthesis of ideas which we all have/do. We are doing essentially on a tiny tiny scale what God does for the world- making us to see the world as HE sees it!! As his children he allows us to organize worlds as he does by seeing them as He does! Our body is in the image of His body so in a small way we organize reality as He does! Edited December 27, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Spammer said: Hmm...it does sound familiar. Elmer Fudd? Seriously, I think the old Mormon model really did a number on me. I've been looking for that spiritual witness, those confirming feelings, my entire life, even now. Their lack still pushes me toward atheism. It's a persistent lack, beginning 35 years ago when I first got on my knees as a high schooler to ask for the same experience others said they had received, has produced a profound angst I live with daily. I've got to let it go for my own wellbeing. It still seems to be central to Mormonism - I still hear it every time I visit with my wife - so Mormonism still won't work for me. I base my current practice on patristic readings and the fact that I find participation in the Divine Liturgy, and the theology that informs it, to be very satisfying. That'll have to be good enough and for now it is. That's it you dummy! (you know I luv ya ) We call that a testimony! Go with it!!! That's God speaking to you in your own language with Him! It bears good fruit for you!
Spammer Posted December 27, 2017 Posted December 27, 2017 50 minutes ago, pogi said: It sounds like it was the right choice for you then. God has something for you to learn in Catholicism, and God has something for me to learn in Mormonism. But I am confident that with good seed and good heart, we will both be feasting on the same fruit in the end...one of us just might be a little more surprised than the other Amen, brother.
Recommended Posts